Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat

If there was a problem with fluorite cracking in lenses or being susceptible to heat that might be a valid point. There isn't, they aren't and it isn't.

We all know you are very anti Canon, but try to be a bit more "in the real world" The reality of the situation is that both Nikon and Canon make superb systems and any decent photographer would be able to take good pictures with either.

Logged

If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat

Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.

Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat

Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.

Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat

Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.

REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.I do not trust this guy and he's "tests" regarding lenses or camera houses, to many errors.

I entirely agree that we should rely on multiple sources for test results, but I wouldn't discredit any one tester over the others. The idea is that you have enough tests to get an average and if one or two of them get something wrong it shouldn't affect your overall impression of the lens.Many (most) of the TDP samples agree with a variety of other tests, so I don't think there's any trickery going on.

Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat

Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.

HCl, pK = -7, is a stronger acid than H2SO4, pK = -2. Although H2SO4 has two Hs, the second pK is 2 so only one of them is dissociated in a 10 M solution (pH = -1). Sorry, I am a bit of a chemist.

REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances

Sorry, but your just flat out wrong there. Bryan of TDP is very meticulous. He has also provided a page detailing how he does his ISO chart tests here:

According to his explanation, every shot of the test chart is sampled at least 10 times, often 15-20 times. The best shot out of all the samples is used to produce the samples he puts up on his site. Ten to twenty shots is more than enough to get a good reading on how well a lens performs.

So here are a real measurements from real MTF test, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG and for the magazine Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4 600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON, (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)THE 4 TESTED LENSES ARE EQUAL NOW you can believe in what you want regarding one or others companies sovereignty and about for example fluorite glass and there are a lot more companies than Nikon, Canon how can build decent lenses . example Zeiss.Leitz, Sigma,Pentax, Tokina,Tamron etc etcIm sorry that Im erasing yet another mythAnd if Jrista or Neuro want to discuss Hasselblad credibility in their measurements, I suggest that they directly address Per Nordlund via e-mail, he is the lens expert expert at Hasselblad

pictures taken from the magazine with a iPhone

What "real" readings? You have provided no link, no concrete information whatsoever, that explains how they did their test. There is nothing "real" about your anecdote here...its just that, an anecdote. The sample test charts need an explanation about how they were performed...that is missing.

REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances

Sorry, but your just flat out wrong there. Bryan of TDP is very meticulous. He has also provided a page detailing how he does his ISO chart tests here:

According to his explanation, every shot of the test chart is sampled at least 10 times, often 15-20 times. The best shot out of all the samples is used to produce the samples he puts up on his site. Ten to twenty shots is more than enough to get a good reading on how well a lens performs.

True.

Supertele lenses optimized for different distances? If so, is that information publicized? RE the testing distance at TDP, lenses under 460mm are tested on an Applied Image QA-77-4-P-RM chart, which meets the ISO 12233 standard and adds features as well (e.g., squares for SFR analysis). The 3:2 region of that chart is 1200x800mm, and if you understand ISO 12233 testing, you'll know you need to fill the frame with the chart - so, tested distance can be determined by the angle of view of a given focal length. In fact, if you look at his specs and measurement tool, one of the specs is '1200x800 subject framing distance' - why that spec? It's the testing distance for the ISO 12233 shots. Lenses longer than 460mm use a smaller chart (QA-77-3, -2 as needed), and the specs page for longer lenses provides those distances for framing the smaller QA-77 charts. The Applied Image charts are quite nice - I have several sizes (I ran across them originally because they produce excellent standards for characterizing microscopic imaging systems, and I have several for use in the lab).

The graphs from the picture shows the MTF at 10cykler per mm a frequency that shows the contrast, super telen as for example 500mm has high contrast but lower MTF values ​​around 40cykler per mm compared with shorter telen, , therefore all super tele lenses are measured at 10 cykler per mm , other questions you can email christian.nilsson@aller.se technical chief Foto MagazineAll info are in the picture above, you can translate the text

If you want people to believe you, you can't put the burden of doing all the heavy duty work of actually figuring out what the hell the test is, how it was done, with what equipment, and to what methodology and phylosophy to them. YOU are on the hook to PROVE YOUR point. I'm not going to try to manually type in a bunch of test from a photo into a translator to figure out what it says, especially when I am fairly certain the information I want is not included in it. Ankorwatt, YOU need to provide the evidence I've asked for if you want me, or anyone else for that matter, to believe you. Why are the tests of that particular magazine more reputable than any others...such as TDP? At least with TDP, I know exactly how he performs his tests, his methodology, and I have the ability to do direct comparisons myself using his wonderful database.

Jrista and Neuro , you call a manual procedure with live view and 4 small Canon/Nikon flashes a optimal set up?well I have news for you, I don't compared to a real MTF test

Again, test charts are just that, controlled tests. Real world results Me_Me_Me test results every day. I can handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes without a monopod, can't do that with my friends Nikon. He even agrees the ergonomics are far superior for the lens AND the body (1Dx v D4). We shot kayaking for two days straight (slalom, boater X, freestyle and River test) using 200 f/2's and 400 f/2.8's + other gear with extenders at some points. IQ wise I beat him out most of the time, not due to better glass but a much better AF system, focusing speed and ability of the lens and lighter weight gear that does not tire you out as much so you can hoist up and get that shot. Shooting an event all day (7am-7pm) in the hot sun with 20 kg of gear is much different then 12 hours and 15kg of gear.

So, lets see this Swedish photo mag's real world working photographers test results and not charts, which serve two purposes: Forum arguments and lens calibration.

I have a friend I shoot with some times. He has the Nikon 500 VR II and the D4. With and without t.c.'s that is an excellent lens. Optics are superb. I shoot with Canon and love it. But in the field I cannot tell a difference between the two in sharpness? And the price is 2K cheaper. This is shooting birds only. My views anyway.

Basically your saying that TheDigitalPicture is fabricating or sabotaging the nikon results?

I think the differences are really small and hard to notice in the field?

How do you explains mansurovs experiences with the tc2xIII , where he states that you need to atleast stop down to f8 and preferably f11?, where as with the canon 300 f2.8 +2x 5.6-6.3 is already very sharp

Photographylife(Mansurovs)For example he found that the 300+1.4@ f5.6-f8 is still less sharp than 400 @ f2.8and : When stopped down to f/11, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-20E III looks sharper than Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II wide open , while @ f8 vs f4 more or less comparable.Read more: http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8g-vr#ixzz2TL6jX49v

This post was originally about performance with teleconverters, I don't doubt that the bare lenses are very close if not equal, but it seems that in all reviews that i have seen that canon's like the converters a bit more.

REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances

So here are a real measurements from real MTF test, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG and for the magazine Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4 600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON, (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)THE 4 TESTED LENSES ARE EQUAL NOW you can believe in what you want regarding one or others companies sovereignty and about for example fluorite glass and there are a lot more companies than Nikon, Canon how can build decent lenses . example Zeiss.Leitz, Sigma,Pentax, Tokina,Tamron etc etcIm sorry that Im erasing yet another mythAnd if Jrista or Neuro want to discuss Hasselblad credibility in their measurements, I suggest that they directly address Per Nordlund via e-mail, he is the lens expert expert at Hasselblad

When considering lenses that I've used, I've always thought of the Canon 300mm f/4 as having essentially equal IQ to the Nikon 300mm f/4. Any difference would negligible. But the Canon has IS, which the Nikon lacks, and which would be useful with a teleconverter if hand holding. (And, not that its directly relevant to the question, but I've thought the Canon lens focuses slightly faster (and would probably continue to do so with a teleconverter). Given that they sell for a similar price, Canon seems the better pick.)

Anyways...maybe they are hand holding all of these lenses for the tests and it is the IS that's causing the difference?